UN Attempting to Create a Legally Binding Climate Change Pact

[Swordsmyth]

The UN globalists have taken a first step toward making their international climate regulations enforceable by the UN.

The United Nations voted Thursday to take a first step toward creating a legally binding agreement on climate change. The body voted 143-5, with 7 abstentions, to have Secretary General Antonio Guterres produce a report by the next General Assembly session in September, which identifies gaps in international environmental laws and related legal instruments to enforce such laws.
The resolution also mandates the creation of a working group that will look at options for addressing the gaps in international environmental law by 2019, with an eye toward holding a conference to “adopt an international instrument.” In other words, unlike the Paris Accord, the UN is looking to create a worldwide environmental agreement with teeth.
The United States was among the five no votes, along with Russia, Turkey, Syria, and the Philippines.



More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/29045-un-attempting-to-create-a-legally-binding-climate-change-pact

[r3volution 3.0]

Legally Binding

That's nice.

Now, what happens when a state chooses to ignore these "legally binding" rules?

Ah, yes, ...nothing.

International law is never binding in any real sense.

[Swordsmyth]

That's nice.

Now, what happens when a state chooses to ignore these "legally binding" rules?

Ah, yes, ...nothing.

International law is never binding in any real sense.

It gives traitors an excuse to sell us out.
The only reason it isn't more of a threat is because the UN doesn't have an army or police.....yet.

[r3volution 3.0]

It gives traitors an excuse to sell us out.
The only reason it isn't more of a threat is because the UN doesn't have an army or police.....yet.

That's right.

Until/unless there's an international government to enforce this "law," it's effectively a press release issued for PR purposes.

[Swordsmyth]

That's right.

Until/unless there's an international government to enforce this "law," it's effectively a press release issued for PR purposes.
It is more than that, "international law" can, has and will be used in courts to justify tyranny that wouldn't have been possible without it.

[r3volution 3.0]

It is more than that, "international law" can, has and will be used in courts to justify tyranny that wouldn't have been possible without it.

Sure, but that's a state choosing to enforce international law, not being compelled to do so by the non-existent world government.

#1. The US Congress signs onto a treaty containing Rule X, and tells the courts to enforce it in the US.

#2. The US Congress passes a law containing Rule X, and tells the courts to enforce it in the US.

These are effectively the same thing. #1 is not "foreign" in some way. Both are decisions of the sovereign US government.

...the overall point here being that people should focus on the substance of law, and not whether it's "international" (booga booga).

[Swordsmyth]

Sure, but that's a state choosing to enforce international law, not being compelled to do so by the non-existent world government.

#1. The US Congress signs onto a treaty containing Rule X, and tells the courts to enforce it in the US.

#2. The US Congress passes a law containing Rule X, and tells the courts to enforce it in the US.

These are effectively the same thing. #1 is not "foreign" in some way.

...the overall point here being that people should focus on the substance of law, and not whether it's "international" (booga booga).

The courts in their treasonous tyranny have enforced "international law" that was never ratified as a treaty or included in legislation that was passed into law, the deepstate bureaucracy just begins enforcing it and the courts uphold it.

It is more than just PR and will continue to be unless we get some fundamental changes in our courts and bureaucracy.

[r3volution 3.0]

The courts in their treasonous tyranny have enforced "international law" that was never ratified as a treaty or included in legislation that was passed into law, the deepstate bureaucracy just begins enforcing it and the courts uphold it.

And Congress chooses to do nothing about it, i.e. endorses it, same as if they'd passed it in the first place.

And voters do nothing about those Congressional (in)actions, same as if they'd supported it.

It's all a matter of freely made choices of Americans, not something imposed on America from outside.

[Swordsmyth]

And Congress chooses to do nothing about it, i.e. endorses it, same as if they'd passed it in the first place.

And voters do nothing about those Congressional (in)actions, same as if they'd supported it.

It's all a matter of freely made choices of Americans, not something imposed on America from outside.
Except that it is easier for congress to avoid blame if they allow it than if they do it, it has been turned into an alternative legislative path outside of the direct control of the voters and is therefore much more than PR.

[r3volution 3.0]

Except that it is easier for congress to avoid blame if they allow it than if they do it, it has been turned into an alternative legislative path outside of the direct control of the voters and is therefore much more than PR.

Maybe so, my point is only that there's nothing meaningfully "international" about it.

[Swordsmyth]

Maybe so, my point is only that there's nothing meaningfully "international" about it.

Except that it is done by the INTERNATIONAL cabal that controls the UN and the various countries that are involved.

[r3volution 3.0]

Except that it is done by the INTERNATIONAL cabal that controls the UN and the various countries that are involved.

First, sure there's foreign influence in Washington, but this has no special connection to international law; it affects law-making generally.

Second, as to the extent of that foreign influence...

Do American politicians/voters bear any responsibility for their own decisions, in your view, or are they all mere puppets of the cabal?

https://realityweecap.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/dun-dun-dun.jpg

Third, isn't The Cabal™ a convenient device for reconciling America's sorry state with your belief in Americans' cultural superiority?

[Swordsmyth]

First, sure there's foreign influence in Washington, but this has no special connection to international law; it affects law-making generally.
But we aren't talking about laws that are or could be made in Washington, that is why they use the UN.


Second, as to the extent of that foreign influence...

Do American politicians/voters bear any responsibility for their own decisions, in your view, or are they all mere puppets of the cabal?
The voter bear some responsibility for returning cabal puppets to office, the politicians bear responsibility for joining the cabal.




https://realityweecap.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/dun-dun-dun.jpg

Third, isn't The Cabal™ a convenient device for reconciling America's sorry state with your belief in Americans' cultural superiority?
No.
The Cabal has corrupted many cultures throughout the course of history, we have resisted better than many.
The Cabal wouldn't have to resort to "international law" if we were in as sad a state as many other countries.

[r3volution 3.0]

But we aren't talking about laws that are or could be made in Washington, that is why they use the UN.

There are no laws which couldn't be made in Washington.

As explained above, "international law," as enforceable in the US, is in fact made in Washington.


The voter bear some responsibility for returning cabal puppets to office, the politicians bear responsibility for joining the cabal.

How/why would they behave differently if The Cabal™ didn't exist?

Your view of the special interests (aka The Cabal™) is reminiscent of the anarcho-capitalists' view of the state: i.e. as some deus ex machina, some foreign thing imposed on society; when in fact both naturally emerge from society. The state doesn't exist because there are specific villains who want it to, such that you can abolish the state by eliminating those villains; if you eliminate those villains, new ones will take their place. Likewise, the special interests don't exist because Rothschild, Rockefeller, Jesuits, Jews, or Illuminati (whatever your conspiratorial persuasion) exist, such that you could eliminate special interests by eliminating them; someone else would take their place. Who is skulking around the halls of power at any given moment is not particularly important. What's important is that the form of government allows any such people to have influence in the first place.


The Cabal has corrupted many cultures throughout the course of history, we have resisted better than many.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPncg5CBwhc

[oyarde]

The US does not belong in the UN . No US tax dollars should be funding it . None . It provides zero service to US Tax payers .

[Swordsmyth]

There are no laws which couldn't be made in Washington.

As explained above, "international law," as enforceable in the US, is in fact made in Washington.
They couldn't have been made in Washington, the people would have thrown out the politicians who enacted them, but people will give them slack if they are just submitting to "international law", that is why they used that route.




How/why would they behave differently if The Cabal™ didn't exist?
How would an airplane behave differently if gravity didn't exist?
The sheeple are lead farther astray by the cabal than they would have wandered on their own.



Your view of the special interests (aka The Cabal™) is reminiscent of the anarcho-capitalists' view of the state: i.e. as some deus ex machina, some foreign thing imposed on society; when in fact both naturally emerge from society. The state doesn't exist because there are specific villains who want it to, such that you can abolish the state by eliminating those villains; if you eliminate those villains, new ones will take their place. Likewise, the special interests don't exist because Rothschild, Rockefeller, Jesuits, Jews, or Illuminati (whatever your conspiratorial persuasion) exist, such that you could eliminate special interests by eliminating them; someone else would take their place. Who is skulking around the halls of power at any given moment is not particularly important. What's important is that the form of government allows any such people to have influence in the first place.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPncg5CBwhc

The cabal is hydra like, it can't be eliminated but it can be fought, its purposes foiled and its power limited.

[Swordsmyth]

The US does not belong in the UN . No US tax dollars should be funding it . None . It provides zero service to US Tax payers .
^^^THIS^^^